Butch,

First let me say right off the bat ..... you misquoted me. If you re-read what I wrote you will see I said

 Quote:

. . . . epecially confident dogs with courage and sound NERVES.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Crabtree:
My preception of a PP or PSD would be one with extreme confidience, solid temperment, strong defense drive and fight drive. With Confidence and solid temperment paramount.

Where does this stand on answering stigs question;

stig;Or is hardness related to the level of courage and good nerves in a dog?

IMO hardness is the "weapon", nerves are the "delivery system" and courage is a by-product of the two.

My opinion is that hardness is defined by the level of will-power in the dog. The stronger the will-power, the harder the dog. I like this definition because IMO it doesn't limit or pigeonhole qualities used to define a "hard" dog (like "courage", "fight drive", "solid defense drive", etc.) and, most importantly, IMO it allows for balance in the dog's temperament (ie. the dog can have qualities associated with "softness" like sensitivity and biddability yet still be a "hard" dog on the job).

Hardness is dependent on nerves for it to be effective or useful in a working situation -- any work whether it be herding or PSD. IOW a hard dog with lousy nerves will perform very differently than a dog with sound nerves.

My opinion from my own limited experience is that the degree of will-power and the quality of nerve are more hard wired in a dog. If the upbringing, "education", experiences and early training that a puppy and young dog are exposed to serve to maximize building the dog's confidence, then you have the best of all worlds as far as a dog's ability to perform goes. So many things are interrelated when it comes to the finished product.

Looked at another way ...... "hardness"/"strong-willed" is the noun and qualities like confidence, temperament, nerves, sensitivity, courage, fight, etc. are adjectives that can be used to modify that noun in individual dogs -- they are qualities that are expressed out of the dog's "hardness" and nerve when it performs (does something).

 Quote:

Butch: I don't care for using the term courage, to me me courage can be fleeting, where confidence is sustaining. A confident K-9 can work out how to deal with new stimuli or situtions, where courage is only a possible reaction to the stimuli or sitution.

Am I in the wrong ballpark for game, or did I just get there after the game was over.

You're in MY ballpark <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> -- can't speak for others. I think we are saying the same thing.

Michael,

You are right, you and I will never agree on corrections. That doesn't mean you don't illistrate what I am saying in your posts. Many credible, and outstanding trainers believe the way I do. They also use the same methods. In fact I think that you will find that the dog is MORE reliable on the street with this type of training because the dog has learned to work WITH you. The behaviors are not based on the "fear" of a hard correction, but are based in the idea that success is based on cooperation and not based in the idea that you "get what you want through physical confrontation".

As for top Sch competitors, The type of training I am talking about is the same basis as Flinks uses. Last I head he was doing fairly well, and I have yet to hear Itor described as a cream-puff. One of the things that Bernard says is that the dog needs to learn that he gets no satisfaction for doing what he wants. Only by following direction does the dog get satisfaction.

There is nothing magic or "Yoda" like about it. Dogs communicate non-verbally and non-physically a vast majority of the time. That also makes them masters of reading non-verbal communication, and you can't hide those signals from them because they are not done conciously.

Whether you believe it it can be done. I know several people that can, and do, do it regularly. You have stated over and over that you don't believe it, and can't do it. Does that make it impossible for everybody else in the world? I doubt it.

Dods don't think the way that we do, but they don't learn from memory. They learn from experience. That is why repition is the key to good, solid dog training. That isn't a function of the correction type or hardness, it is a function of how a dog learns. By setting up the level of correction you advocate you may be able to get training on some extreamly hard dogs. You will break many more than you will get trained. It isn't good training. That was Ellen's point.

These extreamly hard dogs allow for poor training. They can take it, that doesn't make it good training. The biggest part of my point is that many of these dogs are created, not bred. That is the same point that Kevin has made in the past. By doing proper foundation work you can take that hard dog and teach it what it needs to know, with out having to "jerk it's head off". This is where many Sch competitors fail. They don't want to "reduce drive" so they don't use corrections until the opportunity to lay the foundation is lost. With out the ground work, they have to go with a harder correction. They are attempting to make the point through physical control, rather than attempting to teach the dog how to gain satisfaction.

I guess you could argue that this may make the dog score lower in Sch. I can live with that. The point many have made here is that these dogs aren't going to do well in Sch anyway. It will make the dog more reliable. The dog is operating based on learning, not fear of a correction.

You talk about changing statements, I never said to apply hard pressure on a softer dog. We are talking about HARD dogs now.
Experience and memory, what is the diffrence. To have an exprience is the past and therefore memory. That is a no brain.
I have not really been able to draw a comparison to the methods you describe, and Bernhard FLinks training.
I do agree that hardness in a dog is sometimes created, but only if the dog had the genitcs and in-born trait to start with.
As far as Bernhard, my hat is off to him. I can follow his training (from what I have seen and read) and understand his concepts. I am sure that with alot of handlers and dogs they work at great levels. But I cannot follow your theory, and understand the logic behind it. You compare your theory with Bernhards, I really do not see it.
I can tell you this, that take a two year old Hard Temperment dog, that is a rank, you will need more then a buckle collar, or slip to have a dog that is fairly enjoyable to work with.
I am not advocating hard pressure all the time, nor am I advocating making a dog fear me. You simply do not get what I am saying.
I am sorry to tell you that Bernhard is the FIRST trainer that I have heard of that really gets results with a program based on all positave methods for the most part. And even he uses heavy compulsion from time to time. Noone else that sings that song can show me world results that I have met or heard of. If you know them name them so it will be a learning experience for me. I am sure that there has to be people that have trained with Bernhard, but if you know of others please tell.

Michael,

Memory can be learned with only 1 instance. Experience requires repition. The difference is that the association is not made based "remembering" what happened, it has to become ingrained based on repition.

Part of what I am saying is that sucess with a lower level of correction is based on starting EARLY with the dog. If the dog is 2 it is too late to lay the foundation work. The dog has never been taught what a correction means. That is learned as a puppy. It is much harder to teach it to an adult. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. I hate doing it because it isn't fun, but it can and is done. I do it with a slip, others do it with a prong, others an e-collar.

I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is that you keep talking in terms of absolutes. "It takes this ..... to train this type of dog". Absoltes will rarely work with dog training. I am not saying that the dog fears you, I am saying that you are counting on the dog fearing the correction. That is part of the reason you select the tools you choose. Yes you will get away with that with some dogs. It isn't required to get the dog trained. Punishment is the weakest method of gaining compliance. If the punisher isn't present, the dog will not be reliable on the behavior. That is the point that Bernard makes. That is the point I am trying to make.

You keep saying that a proper correction can't be given to a hard dog with a slip or flat collar. It can be done, I do it, others I know do it. I train with a guy named Bob Dolan. I have seen him take very hard, focused dogs and correct them on a 2" flat collar. Joe Morris did it too (Not the Joe Morris back east. This gentleman lived here.). I can't remember the guys name I trained with in Calif. that did the same thing. These are people that train to get reliable dogs in real world situations, not a ring. Many of the top competitors in dog sports that I have talked to have told me that there are things they don't want their dogs reliable on. One guy told me he only wants his dog to out around 80% of the time. That increases the score on the bites and he can take the point decreases for failing an out on the first try or missing a call off. That isn't reliable to me. But he keeps his dogs in a kennel and only uses them for compition. I don't. My dogs are loose in the house, they need to be reliable above all.

The dogs need to be taught to respect you and to do what you want based on the idea that they get what they want for compliance. A correction is not designed to be a method of creating a physical compliance. It is a method of communitacting to the dog what you want. It doesn't take an extreamly hard correction to do that. It takes patience and skill.

BTW, I don't think that in reality we are that far apart in technique. It seem to be more a difference in the thought process to get there, and the method of explaining it.

What about Balabanov or Vandergeten (spelling?)? Those guys seem to have some OK results, and some big wins.

Anyway. . .this post is a little out there and gets away from the topic, but it sums up what I'm thinking about this entire debate.

I wonder at the type of dogs that Mike thinks are so hard that they need such a high level of correction? (sharp prong)

There are just not that many super hard ass dogs on this planet. Mike, do you use the sharp prong to "punish" all your dogs in training? Because they are all hard dominate dogs right????

If so, I would suggest you look at your training methods and get out of the Dark Ages of Old World German avoidance training. Come to the light. . .

Do you still train the OUT by putting a dog on a tie out with a pinch collar on a 20 foot line and then set the decoy at 15 feet. Then you give the dog a bite and the decoy runs full tilt to the 20 foot marker. . .sound familiar. . . Then you give the OUT command at 19.5 feet. SNAP, a hard ass correction just as you finish the OUT command.

Teaches the dog to release the bite as quick as possible otherwise his head gets snapped off at the neck. Is that how it goes?

My grandfather said that in the old days the dogs had to be so hard because of the very harsh training methods, not because such a high level of hardness was necessary for the work. "A lot of dogs that were very good were lost due to poor training." Funny thing about that also, is that they used to not teach a stitch of obedience until protection work was solid. Didn't want to inhibit the dogs or take away any of their toughness or "hardness" by teaching them what a correction means early in life.

Pops also said that those days are over and that even the hardest dogs with high drives will respond better to positive drive methods and early training. Corrections come earlier, "and then you don't have to snap the dog's neck off". That from a man that has trained dogs for 70 years in sport, protection, and police service in Eastern and Western Europe, not to mention here in the US.

If he says its so, it is so my friend.

I know you probably don't train like that. . .but it is the same concept. Avoidance training has it's place, but without a strong positive foundation in youth, dogs will get worse if they have the genetics to be that hard. Rather than working against their drives to inhibit them, you should work with them and form an early association- you do this, I give you this. Then you also give corrections along the way as necessary if the dog is being a punk. That will nip any dominace problems and usually handler hardness problems in the bud. Dogs that clearly understand how to get reward won't waste time in conflict with the handler, and in those rare moments when they do you nail them. Later you may still have to deal out hard corrections from time to time because the dog is naturally hard, but the severity will mean more if the dog hasn't had a lifetime of hard corrections to thicken his skin. Young dogs don't require hard corrections or "sharp" ones to get a "point" accross. So, if you can do "the point accross" part early you won't need the hard ass corrections as much, if at all, later in life (with 99.9% of dogs).

Positive methods will also work with dogs that come to you and have problems. I don't think Flinks raised Itor from a pup. (I might be wrong.)

He didn't. He got him beause his owners couldn't handle him.

Reading you posts, I really think you are correct that while we differ, our training idea's are not that far apart. We express it diffrently that is all.
Now for Van Camp.........LOL........ No I do not use a sharp -prong on all of my dogs. I do not prong the hell of of my dogs kneck either. I do not think all dogs are hard and need to be trained with heavey pressure. There are some people that need a sharp-prong though.LOL. I also think that when you use pressure there needs to be a positave, a realse for the dog. The vast majority of dogs, need good play to realease and tolerate the pressure.
As far as Blabanov(spelling) he use the electric, and alot from my understanding. He puts a solid foundation in, but whne the time comes, the pressure is on from the eletric.
I don not know the other guy you speak of.
While training methods have improved from 50 years ago, there really is not that much that is really new over the past 20 years or so. Maybe some things have been refined but that is all I see. I will say though that the electric collar, has made some remarkable improvements. THe only other thing that has been a significant change is the sports protection. We have weakened the need for aggression in the sport, with the requirment of the calm full grip, as far as the SV aspect goes.

A Van, did you delete yor post about the sharp-prong?

Do you see it now? Boy are you a smart one. . .

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Yep, it was a stupid comment and had nothing really to do with this thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Reading your post again Van, there is not that much we disagree with in terms of training. I do not train in the same concept that you descirbe from the stone-age. But I'll tell you I am made to sound that way over and over again because of my view on the sharp-prong.
I will put the training methods that I like to use up against anyone's training. I have learnt alot of this from Edgar Kaltenbach. ANd I will tell you this, there is noone that I know or heard of that can produce the results that he can, or have they had the real sucess on the scale that he has with any of the modern food-no pressure, everything is happy training. No way. I have never advocating stressing a dog into compliance, without any form of release or reward. I am all for positave training, but there has to be some point that the dogs understand that I MUST do this for my handler. It goes back to pack-drive. And with hard tempermented dogs, this is normally the way to go. WIth that said you must use your noodle to. If you know that there is going to be a big fight, on a training day for example the dog won't out his toy, then it would be best not to ask him to out unless you can get him to out without there being a real battel that you will most likely lose.